The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus ... had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans, and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.

In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became the sultan of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. ... Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill ... At Mathrua he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver, and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground. Six year later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. ... Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves. ... Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. ... The first of these bloody sultans, Kuth-d Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind-fanatical, ferocious, and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, "were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands." ... Another sultan, Balban, punished rebals and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, or removing their skins, stuffing these with straw, and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. ... Sultan Muhammed bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer. dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the victims "and putting them to death in crowds." ... Sultan Ahmed Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.

Currently studying the Crusades. Funny how many academics denounce the Crusades as "Christian agression" when Islam was spread by the sword and only stopped by the French from taking all of Europe in 772! The first Crusade was not until 1096- iff you ask me- it should have been earlier.

4
posted on 02/14/2004 6:43:42 PM PST
by Burkeman1
("If you see ten troubles comin down the road, nine will run into the ditch before they reach you")

But he doesn't seem to know who are enemies are. He let Saudis fly on September 12, 2001, when you and I were grounded. He still speaks about a "Religion of Peace." He wants to establish a new Islamic state in the Middle East. In short he would appear not to have a clue.

We all laughed at Carter and Clinton's "nation building," but isn't that exactly what Bush is trying to do with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rush says, and he's right, that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. We did that. What are we doing in these places now?

The huge problem is that the left does not see a civilizational distinction, thus they are promoters of cultural relativism and multiculturalism(no culture is superior in their view, all cultures are equal). Dedicated to the Gramscian concept that in order for the new socialist order to succeed we must destroy the present order. To that end they will invite any and all groups congruent to that end, including the Muslims.

Their illusion as it has been of all elites is that they will be in charge of the new world order rather than it's victims.

That is the mistake that elites have always made throughout history and they will end UPI destroying western civilization and be the first victims of those that will replace us.

The great clash will not be between the west and islam. This is a sideshow, the west is already finished a victim of it's own decadence and nihilistic traits. The real clash will be between China and Islam to rule the world.

The Muslims discovered long ago, that the real weapon of mass destruction is the womb. The will simply populate the world without firing a shot. They are colonizing us and infecting our culture but our myopic leaders seem to view it as a military problem rather than a cultural one while they push for amnesty for the invaders and global free-trade and government.

We are living through the last days of our western culture. Rome too was a world power shortly before they were conquered from within.

Like others have said, don't play poker with him if you think he is clueless.

Clinton engaged in "nation building" in Haiti. Haiti is on the verge of a revolution. So much for Clinton's "nation building.". There is no guarantee that President Bush will be successful in installing permanently friendly governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The alternative is to cut and run like the Democrats want him to, and guarantee future disasters. In time the Democrats will probably get their wish. We will retreat to our borders and wait for the final battle. Of course one thing is certain. If Democrats are in power, and that power is threatened, they will use all manner of weapons, nuclear, biological and chemical, and break all manner of international agreements and protocols - to keep that power.

15
posted on 02/14/2004 7:09:25 PM PST
by Enterprise
("Do you know who I am?")

A long time ago I read a British book from the 30's about the history of islam. From the descriptions of muhamads death docters said that he most likely died in the advanced stages of a brain deteriating std. Does anyone have any information on that?

The alternative is to cut and run like the Democrats want him to, and guarantee future disasters. In time the Democrats will probably get their wish. We will retreat to our borders and wait for the final battle.

It only guarantees future disasters if we do nothing. We are certainly better off without the Taliban, and without Hussein. Even if both regimes returned they would be many years behind where they were two years ago. If they, or their replacements, were to make threatening military progress we could always return to do what we have already done.

I certainly don't advocate waiting, but I do not think we have any obligation to help them rebuild either.

"The Muslims discovered long ago, that the real weapon of mass destruction is the womb. The will simply populate the world without firing a shot. They are colonizing us and infecting our culture but our myopic leaders seem to view it as a military problem rather than a cultural one while they push for amnesty for the invaders and global free-trade and government."

15 - "A long time ago I read a British book from the 30's about the history of islam. From the descriptions of muhamads death docters said that he most likely died in the advanced stages of a brain deteriating std. Does anyone have any information on that?"

Considering that the brain's function was not discovered until about the 15-1600's, and prior to that all intellect emminated from the heart, I doubt the correctness of that observation.

My excerpt was intended to provoke interest in the history of these savages who are our enemies. Durant gets to Tamerlane shortly after the part I quoted from. I encourage everyone to read this, and as much as they can about the history of Islam.

The fastest growing religion on the planet today is Christianity. There is a reason for that. Christianity is a flexible doctrine whose enduring truths adapt to different centuries. Christ's message is eternal.

Islam, otoh, is still stuck in the Ninth Century, which is why it is undergoing a crisis of being. As long as the Islamic world was sealed away from the rest of the planet, things were relatively peaceful. Now, Islam is confronted by modernity and the rise of Buddhist and Hindu Asia. They are not adapting well.

As for Christians, we are a relatively peaceful people. When aroused, however, Christianity takes to the sword like a duck to water.

The Muslims discovered long ago, that the real weapon of mass destruction is the womb.

This is one of the reasons I thought this paragraph was worth presenting and bolding:

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Charles Martel was the king of the Alsace Franks which were a German tribe. His grandson, known to some as Charlemagne, was in actuality named Karl der Grosse (Karl the Great). His capital would reside in Achen, Germany, not France.

When the muslum do destroy this nation, because of liberal left thinkers and leaders. And their demoralization of this country. May the Lord have mercy on them who follow him. Has for the liberal left and the right that thinks like the left, may the muslums have no mercy on them. I do not look forward for that day. But that day is closer than most would want it to be.

I understand, but without trying to build a strong central government, Afghanistan and Iraq are guaranteed to descend quickly into anarchy and warlords being in control again. The resulting chaos is perfect for people like Bin Laden to hide in and plan future terrorist strikes against America. There IS no short term solution.

The irony here BTW is that President Carter's disastrous Mideast policy is what enabled Khomeini to seize power in Iran and plant the seeds for the eventual terrorist acts we see around the world today. Just a little bit of BALLS and foresight by CARTER may have defrayed the ISLAMOFASCISTS by several decades.

29
posted on 02/14/2004 7:36:42 PM PST
by Enterprise
("Do you know who I am?")

Charles Martel (688?-741), Carolingian ruler of the Frankish kingdom of Austrasia (in present northeastern France and southwestern Germany). Charles, whose surname means the hammer, was the son of Pepin of Herstal and the grandfather of Charlemagne. Pepin was mayor of the palace under the last kings of the Merovingian dynasty. After Pepin died in 714, Charles, an illegitimate son, was imprisoned by his father's widow, but he escaped and was proclaimed mayor of the palace by the Austrasians. A war between Austrasia and the Frankish kingdom of Neustria (now part of France) followed, and at the end of it Charles became the undisputed ruler of all the Franks. Although he was engaged in wars against the Alamanni, Bavarians, and Saxons, his greatest achievements were against the Muslims from Spain, who invaded France in 732. Charles defeated them near Poitiers at the Battle of Tours in which the Muslim leader, Abd-ar-Rahman, the emir of Spain, was killed. The progress of Islam, which had filled all Christendom with alarm, was thus checked for a time. Charles drove the Muslims out of the Rhône valley in 739, when they had again advanced into France as far as Lyon, leaving them nothing of their possessions north of the Pyrenees beyond the Aude River. Charles died in Quierzy, on the Oise River, leaving the kingdom divided between his two sons, Carloman and Pepin the Short.

The other thing that we must keep in mind is the essence of the article. Look how the Moslems have behaved in the past and ask if there is any possibility that they have changed. And then ask how many do we need to kill to get them to settle down again for a couple of centuries.

33
posted on 02/14/2004 7:44:59 PM PST
by Enterprise
("Do you know who I am?")

Currently studying the Crusades. Funny how many academics denounce the Crusades as "Christian agression" when Islam was spread by the sword and only stopped by the French from taking all of Europe in 772! The first Crusade was not until 1096- iff you ask me- it should have been earlier.

The Islamic Moors conquered most of Spain in 711 A.D. after the descendents of the Visigothic warriors that had conquered Roman Hispania in 415 A.D. had become a decadent and lazy ruling class with the passage of time.

The Christians made a stand in the mountain strongholds of Galicia and Asturias and defeated the Islamic Moors in 718 A.D. at Alcama thus turning the tide of Islamic conquest.

Thus began the Reconquista of Spain that lasted until Granada, the last Moorish kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula, was conquered in 1492.

The Reconquista was the earliest, the longest and the only completely succesful European Crusade in Christendom.

The Reconquista was the earliest, the longest and the only completely succesful European Crusade in Christendom.

What about Russian lead liberation of Balkans and Russia itself? If West did not oppose it(Crimean War etc), probably Constantinople("Istambul") and coast of Asian Minor("Turkey") would be still Christian today.

39
posted on 02/14/2004 8:25:43 PM PST
by A. Pole
(pay no attention to the man behind the curtain , the hand of free market must be invisible)

In addition to Will Durant's monumental work, I particularly enjoyed John Keay's India: A History. Keay is far mor sympathetic to Islam but comes to the same conclusion as Durant. Of particular interest to me were the section on several Mughal Emperors who were fairly benign. Without exception, they were those who drifted away from an Arab / fundamental interpretation of Islam. The Muslims sacked a plundered well but really brought little else.

Then why do they have a chicken as their national emblem, velocopide racing as their national sport and soap as their national aversion? The germanic tribes developed none of these traits. Me thinks we need a DNA test.

What about Russian lead liberation of Balkans and Russia itself? If West did not oppose it(Crimean War etc), probably Constantinople("Istambul") and coast of Asian Minor("Turkey") would be still Christian today.

Well, for whatever reasons, there is still that little dark green chunk of Islamic Europe in the Balkans.

The defeat of Islam in Spain was complete and the Reconquista was therefore the "most successful" Crusade in Europe.

you ping center-mass on the central points (that too often are not referred to by many of us...): Gramsci - I wonder how many folks here on freep know of him?... demographic trends; elitist thought, etc...

It is the historical demographic explosion of muslim populations, augmented by our dangerously open borders, that concerns me most. There are currently something between 3 to 8 million muslims in our country, and a strong wahhabi influence/proselytization among our population.

Case in point: our prisons... most muslim converts in prison are black or hispanic, and the wahhabi virus targets these minds - already stunted by violence, drugs, hatred, and/or all other things that go into the making of a criminal - and paints itself as a religion for the colored peoples - Jose Padilla is the classic example. Then, it's but a simple and short step to play upon the racial tensions of the new convert, mix in a little revisionist history salted with 600 years of islamic decay and self-hatred of their cultural failure, and POOF!!! - out comes another brainwashed local kid ready to apply his (already criminally established...) knowledge of violence against the homeland.

A point to consider as we view the muslim intrusion into our own country: Historically, muslim minorities have remained quiet and under the radar until their numbers start approaching roughly 10 percent of the targetted population. This period of relative silence is what they use as proof when they spout their "Islam is peaceful/Jihad is spiritual" bullshit. As mentioned above, the muslim population sits at about 8 million, or roughly 3 percent of the US population. What appears to be different here is that - though it's a smaller percentage, activist noise is already coming out of this group. things like coalescing into a voting bloc (not surprisingly, targetting Bush for defeat); or the constant whining by self-anointed muslim interest groups such as CAIR in attacking all public figures that do not universally paint them in the best light. I've some thoughts on why, but haven't yet seen enough info and will reserve them for later. Still, I'm interested in your take on this.

I wouldn't count the West out yet, though, hermano guerrero... certainly not the United States, or some of the Eastern European Nations. But that is another topic.

Juan CGVet58

45
posted on 02/15/2004 3:13:10 AM PST
by CGVet58
(God has granted us liberty, and we owe him courage in return)

Dubya: Will call Islam a "Religion Of Peace" in public. Will then kick the @$$es of the Islamics who have it coming.

Do you think the Saudis are among those "who have it coming"?

I do. I think they were at the top of the list on September 12, 2001. Where do you think my mother fits on that list? ("Dubya's" gubmint gives her more scrutiny boarding an airplane than it gives to an unshaven towelhead.)

I really hope this becomes a campaign issue. If I had a chance to ask a question, I'd ask what are the three most informative books they've read since 2001 about Islam and what message they've taken from these books.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.